I may have placed too much confidence in that predictor, especially this early (when betting is smallish). I do know that, comparing their odds with my intuition I thought of betting Romney in '12 and against Trump in '16 … and was obviously glad I did not.
I do think Warren is likelier to get the brass ring than Biden. She’s the best and brightest on the stage, while Biden’s age or gaffes are likely to catch up with him.
I also agree that Biden is more “electable” … IF he has the health, stamina, and mental acuity to last out the campaign.
You make a good point about tying up money (though you’ll probably be able to cash out for good profit by early Spring. OTOH, if you “short” several candidates, you’ll lose at most one bet — is that considered when determining what cash balance is required?
That’s a good point. But I am mainly interested in betting against Yang. Maybe in January or February I will try to make a quick profit with some of my savings. Is there a transaction fee?
You’re welcome, everyone! I’ve gotta say I’ve been enjoying doing this, so I’ll keep doing it. And doing my own average by my own written-down rules forces me to see things I might have missed, and keeps me from seeing things that aren’t there.
For example: much as I want to read it into the polls, Warren’s not on the verge of breaking 20%. (Unless debate #3 gives her a bigger boost than anyone’s expecting.) And the Warren/Sanders inversion, where Warren’s rise in the polls was going to eventually result in her drawing support from people who’d been supporting Bernie, isn’t happening either. Instead, since late July, both Warren and Sanders have been rising in the polls. (I really didn’t expect that.) Combined, they’re now drawing upwards of 35% in the polls now, versus ~30% then. And Biden’s support does seem to be very, very gradually diminishing.
If I was seeing this in the RCP average, I’d blame the stuff I didn’t like on the clunky* way they do their average. But when it’s happening in my numbers, I can’t pretend it’s not happening.
The RCP average turns out to be better than I thought: their rather simplistic average might be off by a couple of points here and there, but per my comparison for last week, it’s not that far off from either The Economist’s average or my own. I still like mine better, of course.
In addition to the three at-least-weekly polls (YouGov, Morning Consult, HarrisX), this week’s polls include new polls A-rated NBC/WSJ and Survey USA, B-rated GQR Research, and C-rated McLaughlin and Associates, and the following still-recent holdovers: A-rated CNN-SSRS and B-Rated Ipsos.
And here’s the comparison with the other averages:
What mostly seems to be happening is that while Biden support is slightly( but not yet seriously )eroding, the main trend is Warren/Sanders getting fatter by devouring the declining Harris base.
The Big Four looks to be consolidating towards the Big Three.
I should point out that only two post-debate polls of Iowa were available for this average. Both pollsters are unrated by 538.
As a Warren supporter, I like seeing her name at the top of that list, but I’d feel a lot more comfortable about trusting it if Ann Selzer was one of the pollsters. Nate does say in that piece that a Selzer/DMR poll is coming soon, so I’m gonna withhold judgment until then.
As far as the nationals are concerned, I’d love to see their weights, because that’s a bigger advantage for Warren over Sanders than I’ve seen in anyone’s average before now, including my own.
I just noticed that one of the two unrated outfits polling Iowa, Civiqs, also has done a national poll since the debate. They have Warren over Biden in Iowa, 24-16. Well, possible I suppose, since I don’t know shit about what’s happening in Iowa, but it’s still a bit too far in the direction of what I’d like to believe, so color me skeptical.
But then I see they have Warren over Biden nationally by 30-24, and they also did a poll right before the debate which showed Warren over Biden nationally, 28-23. Since I believe those numbers about as much as I believe what Donald Trump says, I’m similarly (i.e. totally) discounting the big lead they give Warren in Iowa. (And I’m glad I don’t include unrated pollsters in my average!)
So I don’t have any idea who’s ahead in Iowa, and frankly I don’t think 538 knows either, given that their conclusion is based on two polls, and this one’s entirely responsible for the fact that their average shows Warren ahead. There are reasons to suspect she might be leading there, but no evidence yet AFAIAC.
